Amount of property and money brought into a marriage is a major factor in property distribution in Montana: In re Marriage of Summerfelt

In re Marriage of Summerfelt, 688 P.2d 8 (1984) is a case demonstrating how much the financial contributions of spouses at time of marriage matter upon divorce.

In this case, husband and wife were married in Townsend, Montana, in 1963.  At the time of the marriage, the wife had significantly more property than the husband.  The wife owned a ranch near Townsend with 3,880 acres, as well as an additional 120 acres of ranchland.  The wife further had 170 head of livestock, a 1/3 interest in three rental properties in Billings, as well as household furniture.
At the time of the marriage, the husband had a house in Helena that was subject to debt, a few vehicles and a trailer.

Although the husband and wife dispute how much wife's property was worth at the time of the marriage, it was clear that wife had significantly more value in her property than did the husband.

In 1980, the wife filed for dissolution (divorce). The District Court determined that both husband and wife had worked hard during the marriage and contributed to their estate, and awarded property accordingly.

Although the wife appealed a few issues from the District Court decision to the MT Supreme Court, the most pertinent issue to us is:  Whether the award to the wife was inadequate in light of the financial condition of each of the parties at the outset of the marriage.
The well-established rule in Montana is:

"The apportionment made by the District Court will not be disturbed on review unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion as manifested by a substantial inequitable division of the marital assets resulting in substantial injustices." In re the Marriage of Brown (1978), 179 Mont. 417, 587 P.2d 361.

Although the District Court did not determine the financial condition of the parties at the time of marriage,the Supreme Court determined that it was clear that the wife had brought substantially more into the marriage than the husband.  Therefore, the amount awarded to the husband was an abuse of discretion because of the parties' financial condition when they got married.

The case was reversed and remanded to divide the marital assets.

You can view the case at: In re Marriage of Summerfelt